Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with. If he was seen at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

But Caz, you don´t know that Lechmere was a killer in my mind only. What a disastrous thing to say. I am supposed to be the biased one, but here you are, one by one, professing to much worse bias yourself! Steve goes on about how it is proven that Paul was within earshot, Herlock says that the geographical ties Lechmere had to St Georges are irrelevant, Gareth says that disagreeing with the police over what was said in combination with a murder is not a red flag and now you present a theory that Lechmere cannot have been the killer other than in my mind...?

It is a pretty ugly exhibition of bias in my eyes!

You then, somewhat mysteriously, move on to claim that I would have said that Lechmere could go on killing after Bucks Row, relying on having an innocent reason to give for his presence at the murder sites...?

Just where did you get THAT from? I never said anything remotely like it. I instead say that he burnt that option in Bucks Row. Have you not read that? Seen that? Heard me saying that?
So why accuse me of having said something I have never even hinted at?

You go on by suggesting that since he burnt his innocense ship down to the ground(or surface...?) in Bucks Row, he should have taken his business elsewhere afterwards, instead of killing in places he was associated with.

Caz, if only!

If only the world was a pretty place! If only people behaved the way we expect them to!

But you know, neither applies.

Have a look at how many killers who have been caught, where it has been subsequently shown that they have killed along paths they were associated with.

Guess how the phrase "comfort zone" was invented?

Lechmere was not under suspicion. Nobody was interested in his paths, or compared them to the murder sites. He was just as free to murder away as any other serial killer has been over the years, and he took the same kind of advantage of it as they have done: he killed within his comfort zone.

Have you noticed how killers tend to get nicknames that are geographically based? The East Area rapist, for example. Or even worse, the Visalia ransacker! The Green River killer. The Sacramento Vampire. The Boston Strangler.

That is because they - in spite of how smart it would be to change hunting grounds - stick with a confined territory.

In Lechmeres case, it also applies that he would not have had all the time in the world to go to Leith, Banbury, Cropredy and Anchorage to confuse the police. But sine they had no clue who the killer was, they had nobody to pin the geography on, and Berner Street and Mitre Square would have helped immensely to erase the tracks leading to Lechmere.

So basically, if you are asking "would he not be smarter if he spread his venues more?", you get a wholehearted YES from me.

But if you instead ask "Should we not expect that he would have spread his venues more?", I´m afraid it is a no.

[Fisherman]

Read post 1297, it says nothimg about having to accept Kelly's TOD, just the reverse.

So an admission it was "leg pulling" and thus untrue.

Thank you.

My pleasure, Steve. You have had it before, but it seems you did not pick up on it.

And of course, YOU pulled MY leg by saying that I must accept Kelly´s TOD.

That, though, I picked up on immediately.

[ohrocky]

Having finally reached page 138, I have placed upon my head my Sunday best tin hat and ventured into this thread.

I think it would be extremely helpful to see the evidence presented to Messrs Scobie & Griffiths upon which they reached their conclusions. Would you be prepared to post that information please Fisherman?

I have read just about every post on this thread as the documentary piqued my interest in Crossmere. However, my view is that we are in a position where:

- we have no confession
- we have no witnesses
- we have no forensics

There is some weak circumstantial evidence but under English law, a jury cannot convict on circumstantial evidence alone. In fact, I believe that there would almost certainly not even be a charge based on the weak circumstantial evidence presented to date.

I would therefore like to see the evidence that was presented that led to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case to answer, and for Fisherman to be told "privately" that he "had his man".

(Bloody hell, I hope this tin hat works!)

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth says that disagreeing with the police over what was said in combination with a murder is not a red flag

... eh?

[Fisherman]

No avodance at all.
I have never said i have proved Paul was in earshot.
Steve

I refer you to your post 844, where you commented on my statement that Paul could have been out of earshot:

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.


And to post 972, where this is said:
I will say again.*
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.*
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

I don´t think more needs to be said on the point.

[Fisherman]

... eh?

When it was said (by Abby) that there were red flags, I seem to remember that you denied this.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Elamarna]

My pleasure, Steve. You have had it before, but it seems you did not pick up on it.

And of course, YOU pulled MY leg by saying that I must accept Kelly´s TOD.

That, though, I picked up on immediately.

But that was never ever said was it?

The comment in post 1297 was if one reject the TOD for Kelly, on the grounds that it is based on unreliable indicators, one must also reject the TOD for Chapman given the same indicators are used.

Completely the opposite of you suggest was posted



Steve

[Fisherman]

Having finally reached page 138, I have placed upon my head my Sunday best tin hat and ventured into this thread.

I think it would be extremely helpful to see the evidence presented to Messrs Scobie & Griffiths upon which they reached their conclusions. Would you be prepared to post that information please Fisherman?

I have read just about every post on this thread as the documentary piqued my interest in Crossmere. However, my view is that we are in a position where:

- we have no confession
- we have no witnesses
- we have no forensics

There is some weak circumstantial evidence but under English law, a jury cannot convict on circumstantial evidence alone. In fact, I believe that there would almost certainly not even be a charge based on the weak circumstantial evidence presented to date.

I would therefore like to see the evidence that was presented that led to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case to answer, and for Fisherman to be told "privately" that he "had his man".

(Bloody hell, I hope this tin hat works!)

No need for a tin hat.

I never met Scobie, and contrary to what Herlock Sholmes has claimed, I did not supply him with any material. The docu crew did, and they were very professional in what they did, so working from an assumption that he was misinformed does not work with me.

Griffiths I met and spoke a lot to. He had the same compilation as i did, with a large number of police reports and articles. He read it extensively, and arrived at his conclusions on his own account. Nobody has, as far as I know, asked him "but exactly why do you think that the team had a good case?"

I sometimes wich somebody had done that, since I believe it could have saved me a lot of time.

[Fisherman]

But that was never ever said was it?

The comment in post 1297 was if one reject the TOD for Kelly, on the grounds that it is based on unreliable indicators, one must also reject the TOD for Chapman given the same indicators are used.

Completely the opposite of you suggest was posted



Steve

Steve, in a context where reality is turned on end by a suggestion that Kelly´s both TOD:s must be accepted, I am quite likely to turn things on end myself.

I was answering a "Behind the mirror" point with another point from the same venue.

[Fisherman]

I´m off for now - suppertime! And then its football time....

[Elamarna]

I refer you to your post 844, where you commented on my statement that Paul could have been out of earshot:

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.


And to post 972, where this is said:
I will say again.*
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.*
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

I don´t think more needs to be said on the point.

Lets look at those posts.

844: "until such time as you can prove"

Clearly in line with my response that you have not proven the possibility.

Post 972.: different langague but still the same point, the evidence of the carmen is not challenged, therefore you have not proven it is possible

Again in keeping with my view.

I do not say i have proven it is impossible, only that you have not demonstrated that such is possible.

Indeed that seems very clear and nothing else need be said i agree.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve, in a context where reality is turned on end by a suggestion that Kelly´s both TOD:s must be accepted, I am quite likely to turn things on end myself.


hang on a minute, that was never said.
It was never said you must accept the Kelly TOD'S was it!

I was answering a "Behind the mirror" point with another point from the same venue.

No you were being misleading, repeating it in several posts.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.

The point that I was making was an obvious one. You were saying that you’ll continue to support CL’s candidature until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration. I was simply pointing out that at a distance of 130 years such exoneration is unlikely in the extreme. Not because he’s definitely guilty but because it’s unlikely that that kind of conclusive evidence will ever appear.

The same is the case for Hutchinson, Bury, Druitt, Kosminski, Mann, Backert, Lewis Carroll and many, many more. If your criteria for someone being a worthy suspect is “well you cannot categorically exonerate him,” then I’d say the less said about that the better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No need for a tin hat.

I never met Scobie, and contrary to what Herlock Sholmes has claimed, I did not supply him with any material. The docu crew did, and they were very professional in what they did, so working from an assumption that he was misinformed does not work with me.

But you agreed in an earlier post that he was presented with a case for the prosecution only. If you say that you weren’t involved in presenting or compiling a case against then of course I wouldn’t call you a liar on that point. I was simply mistaken on that point but I’ll say that it was a fairly reasonable assumption as you are pretty much the star of the documentary as it follows you from Sweden to London to find the ‘truth.’ The more important point though is that ‘someone’ presented him with a case for the prosecution unless you are suggesting that the documentary crew took a month or two to research the case in detail and presented ‘their case without consulting anyone with a prior knowledge of the The Whitechapel Murders?

So to conclude Fish, and not for the first time, I’m not saying that Scobie was misinformed. I’m not saying that Scobie was lied to. I’m not saying that Scobie was biased or in any way dishonest. What I’m saying is....HE ONLY SAW THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND NOT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT. AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT WHICH MAY HAVE AFFECTED/CHANGED HIS FINAL OPINION. Just for once Fish can you just accept a point which is absolutely beyond arguement?

Griffiths I met and spoke a lot to. He had the same compilation as i did, with a large number of police reports and articles. He read it extensively, and arrived at his conclusions on his own account. Nobody has, as far as I know, asked him "but exactly why do you think that the team had a good case?"

You choose to accept Griffith’s opinion (obviously it suits your case.) I feel pretty certain that he would be in a minority if you asked a larger number of people though. Especially when considering how dangerous (not just a risky thrill) that CL’s decision to stay and call over Paul would have been for a guilty man. This surely has to be counted as a point that is heavily against a guilty CL.

I sometimes wich somebody had done that, since I believe it could have saved me a lot of time.

I sometimes wish that people wouldn’t get so exasperated when someone dares to disagree with them.

I sometimes wonder if there are any facts about this case that give you even the slightest pause for doubt on CL’s guilt?

[MrBarnett]

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?